CPD IN THE NEWS

"We hope that John Williams's tenure as president will not be characterized by the same disregard for the public as his appointment was." -- Fed Up, a coalition of progressive non-profits focused on reshaping the central bank.

Read the full article here.

Este mes, el alcalde de la ciudad de Nueva York Bill de Blasio anunció un sueldo mínimo garantizado de $15 para todos los empleados del gobierno municipal para fines de 2018. Esta es una gran victoria para más de 50,000 empleados en toda la ciudad que pasan apuros para mantener a su familia, incluidos aquellos directamente en planilla y decenas de miles que trabajan en organizaciones sin fines de lucro contratadas por la ciudad.

A diferencia de Seattle y Los Ángeles, donde los funcionarios municipales tienen el poder para aumentar el sueldo mínimo de todos los empleados de su ciudad, el alcalde De Blasio no puede aumentar los salarios de todos los trabajadores de la ciudad de Nueva York unilateralmente. El gobernador Andrew Cuomo y la legislatura estatal tienen ese poder. Los esfuerzos del gobernador por incrementar el salario mínimo a $15 se están viendo obstaculizados por el Senado estatal, que está controlado por los republicanos.

La decisión de De Blasio de aumentar los sueldos de los empleados municipales es un paso independiente crucial hacia una ciudad más equitativa y debe inspirar a otras ciudades en el país. También refleja el poder e ímpetu de un movimiento revolucionario encabezado por los trabajadores que exigen salarios más altos en todo el país.

Incluso mientras los gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal arrastran los pies con respecto al asunto inevitable de un salario mínimo decente para las familias trabajadoras en los Estados Unidos, el audaz paso que dio De Blasio muestra que las ciudades pueden y deben tomar las riendas del problema.

El aumento del salario mínimo por el alcalde se produjo poco después de su anuncio el mes pasado de que a los 20,000 empleados no sindicalizados de la ciudad se les otorgaría seis semanas de licencia remunerada por maternidad/paternidad y hasta 12 semanas, cuando se combine con licencias existentes. El alcalde ahora ha pasado a negociar los mismos beneficios con los sindicatos de la ciudad. Nuevamente, los trabajadores del sector privado de la ciudad de Nueva York deben esperar a que Albany o Washington, D.C. tome medidas con respecto a licencia familiar pagada para todos.

Las medidas recientes del alcalde De Blasio apoyan su objetivo de sacar a 800,000 neoyorquinos de la pobreza durante los próximos diez años. Más de 20 por ciento de la población de la ciudad vive en condiciones de pobreza, un enorme sector de una ciudad normalmente relacionada con extraordinaria riqueza.

En los dos últimos años se ha visto un ímpetu sin paralelo de parte de los propios trabajadores exigiendo sueldos decentes, desde la ciudad de Nueva York hasta Los Ángeles y Chicago, lo que resultó en aumentos salariales para los trabajadores de negocios de comida rápida y otros grupos.

Los trabajadores no esperan pacientemente a los funcionarios públicos; se están organizando de manera sin precedente. Alcaldes progresistas como De Blasio están respondiendo con políticas sensatas, mientras los funcionarios que no desean responder ya saben lo que se viene. Ciudades como Los Ángeles, Nueva York y Chicago están preparando el terreno y mostrando que es posible actuar independientemente de gobiernos estatales y el gobierno federal.

Además, varios estados han promulgado leyes que aumentan el salario mínimo por encima del mísero estándar de $7.25 por hora. Actualmente se realizan campañas en 14 estados y cuatro ciudades para aumentar el sueldo mínimo y los estándares a favor de los trabajadores. El ímpetu se está convirtiendo en una avalancha que tendrá consecuencias profundas en las elecciones presidenciales del 2016.

Casi la mitad de los trabajadores del país ganan menos de $15 por hora y 43 millones se ven forzados a trabajar cuando están enfermos o tienen la necesidad urgente de cuidar a alguien, o de lo contrario, ponen en peligro su empleo. Es el momento de que las ciudades escuchen a sus trabajadores y pasen por encima de la pasividad estatal y federal a fin de permitir que millones de estadounidenses que trabajan muy duro mantengan a sus familias.

Source: El Diario

Mother Jones - April 9, 2015, by Josh Harkinson - Until recently, your typical banker was someone whose main job was to accept deposits, cash checks, and dispense basic financial advice. But now that job hardly exists anymore—at least not as we once knew it. Today's front-line bank workers—tellers, loan interviewers, and customer-service reps—earn far too little money to be considered "bankers" in the traditional sense of the word. And though they still collect and dispense money, their main job involves hawking credit cards and loans you probably don't need.

Many rank and file bank workers are seeing lower wages and more pressure to hawk financial products.

Rank-and-file bank workers are both causes and symptoms of America's widening economic divide, says Aditi Sen, the author of Big Banks and the Dismantling of the Middle Class, a report released today by the Center for Popular Democracy. Based on union organizer interviews with hundreds of workers in the industry, Sen found that front-line bank workers often face quotas for hawking potentially exploitive financial products, often to low-income customers, even though the workers themselves barely qualify as middle class. "We can definitely see bank workers as part of the same continuum of issues facing all low-wage workers," she says.

Banks are, of course, notorious for squeezing profits from their employees and customers. In 2011, the Federal Reserve Board fined Wells Fargo $85 million for forcing workers to sell expensive subprime mortgages to prime borrowers. And in late 2013, a judge slapped Bank of America with a $1.27 billion penalty for its "Hustle Program," which rewarded employees for producing more loans and eliminating controls on the loans' quality.

Yet, by some accounts, these sorts of practices are getting worse. In a 2013 study by the union-backed Committee for Better Banks, 35 percent of low-level bank workers surveyed reported increased sales pressure since 2008, and nearly 38 percent stated that there was no real avenue in the workplace to oppose such practices. One HSBC bank employee, according to the study, reported that workers who failed to meet their sales goals had the difference taken out of their paychecks.

The increasing sales pressure comes at a time when the fortunes of the banks and their low-level workers have diverged widely. Bank profits and CEO pay have rebounded to near record levels while wages for front-line workers are stuck in the gutter.

And that's not all. Nearly a quarter of bank workers surveyed in 2013 reported that their benefits had been cut since 2008, and 44 percent reported that their medical and life insurance was inadequate. A recent University of California-Berkeley study found that 31 percent of bank tellers' families rely on public assistance at an annual cost of $900 million to taxpayers.

There are several factors in all of these woes. Mergers and consolidation have led some retail banks to shutter branches and lay people off. Many banks have outsourced customer-service jobs to overseas call centers, and the rise of internet and smartphone banking has further slashed demand for flesh-and-blood tellers. In other words, it's basically the same mix of foreign and technological competition that has concentrated wealth and depressed middle-class wages throughout the economy. And it means that banks can get away with paying people less, and demanding more in return.

But now the Committee for Better Banks is trying to cultivate common cause between low-level bank workers and the customers they're forced to target. The interviews featured in the new report show that many bank workers strongly oppose the sales quotas as unfair and exploitive. For instance:

A teller at a top-five bank reports that she is subject to stringent individual goals on a daily basis: If she does not make three sales-points (selling someone a new checking, savings, or debit card account) each day in a month, she gets written up.

Customer service representatives at a call center for another major bank report that each individual has to make 40 percent of the sales of the top seller to avoid being written up. Selling credit cards counts more towards sales goals than helping someone open up a checking account or savings account, thereby crafting skewed incentives based on the profitability of a product sold, not on how well it matched the needs of a customer.

"There was one guy who had three credit cards and I ended up pushing a fourth on him, even though I knew that was not good for him."

"A lot of time people would call and already have one, two, or three credit cards with us," says Liz, a member of the Committee for Better Banks who worked in a Bank of America call center for five years and did not want to give her last name. "They might have a situation where they are low on funds and we end up pushing another credit card on them. There was one guy who had three credit cards and I ended up pushing a fourth on him, even though I knew that was not good for him; he would just be in more debt. But if didn't, I would end up being put in a reprimand."

On Monday, members of the Committee for Better Banks will converge in Minnesota's Twin Cities to deliver a petition to bank offices demanding better pay and more stable work hours for rank-and-file workers, and an end to sales goals that "push unnecessary products on our customers."

Source

 

NEW YORK, N.Y. - There was never any doubt Juana Alvarez's 18- and 20-year-old American-born daughters would be taking part in the election this year. Alvarez did her best to see to that.

"I had two people I wanted to get registered and I registered them," Alvarez, a 39-year-old housekeeper in Brooklyn who came to the U.S. from Mexico as a teenager, said through a translator.

For Alvarez and the estimated 11 million other immigrants living illegally in the U.S., this is a potentially crucial election, with Republican Donald Trump talking about mass deportations and a border wall and Democrat Hillary Clinton pledging to support immigration reform and protect President Barack Obama's executive actions on behalf of immigrants.

Come Election Day, these immigrants will be watching from the sidelines, their future in the hands of others. Under the U.S. Constitution, only full citizens can vote; legal immigrants who are green card holders also are not allowed to cast a ballot.

Trump has spoken of fears of election fraud or that immigrants living illegally in the country might vote. More broadly, he has said all immigrants should play by the legal rules.

Alvarez and others like her say although they can't vote, they have been taking part in get-out-the-vote efforts among citizens.

In places like New York, California, Arizona and Virginia, they have been knocking on doors and making telephone calls, registering people, urging them to go to the polls, and telling their stories in hopes of persuading voters to keep the interests of immigrants in mind when they go into the booth.

"For me, it's important that those who can vote come out of the shadows and make their voices heard," Alvarez said.

Isabel Medina, a 43-year-old from Los Angeles who has been in the country illegally for 20 years and has three sons, two born in the U.S., has worked phone banks and taken part in voter registration drives for U.S. citizens, making sure that "even though they're frustrated, they are disappointed, they still realize it is really important, that they know the power that they have in their hands."

She says she emphasized the need to vote for all the races, not just the presidency, and the importance of taking part in referendums and propositions.

Even though these immigrants can't vote, their pre-Election Day efforts make a difference, said Karina Ruiz, 32, of Phoenix, who came to the U.S. illegally from Mexico when she was 15 and is acting executive director of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, an immigrant-advocacy group that has been doing get-out-the-vote work.

"It is making an impact because those people who wouldn't vote otherwise, when they listen to my story and hear their vote does count and make a difference, they're encouraged to participate and be my voice," said Ruiz, who has a work permit and an exemption from deportation under Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy. That policy was created by executive order, one that could be undone by any president in the future.

"I think to myself: I could just vote once, if I had the power to," she said. But "if I can influence 50 to 60 people to go ahead and vote, that's my voice multiplied by a whole lot."

As for what will happen after Election Day, "the uncertainty, it is there, I don't know what's going to happen," said Medina, who avoids talking about the election with her U.S.-born sons because she doesn't want them to get scared that their parents might be deported. "I am worried, yes."

By Deepti Hajela

Source